The emphasis is that the executive merely proposes a constitution for promulgation. After the proposal, it is the National Assembly members who are the law makers that must exercise the duty to review the proposal clause by clause and do whatever they wish with the clauses proposed. This could only be done after the second reading. He emphasized that the second reading is simply meant to debate on the principle of a Constitution (Amendment/Promulgation) Bill.
It is during the committee stage that the law makers could subject the proposed clauses by the executive to public hearing so that every concerned person could have his or her impute in the crafting of the clauses for consideration of the National Assembly members in making/building the Constitution.
He emphasized that in 2020 the National Assembly members deprived the people of a public hearing in scrutinizing the Constitution (Promulgation) Bill 2020 that could have impacted on the content during the consideration stage by preventing the Bill from going beyond the second reading.
It was emphasized that no person or party should try to dictate how the law makers are to perform their duties. The law and the Standing Orders have already told them what they are supposed to do. They should be simply asked to perform their duties by being the law makers of the country.
The executive could be accused of not doing sufficient consultation before making its proposals. That does not deter the National Assembly members from reviewing the proposals and then doing sufficient consultation with the people in order to determine the clauses that are fit to be adopted at the third reading and sent to the people for a referendum. It was emphasized that if the members fail to agree on the content at the consideration stage nothing stops them from rejecting the proposals at the third reading.
